User talk:SilkTork/Start

Welcome, but...

Welcome to wikipedia. I see you've been doing a lot of beer related edits, please consider joining wikiproject beer if you're going to be making a lot of contributions.

There are a couple of points I'd like to raise about your edits. Firstly changing references to "Real ale" into "cask ale" it quite arbitrary as it very much depends on who's definition you're using. In the case of Wychwood I feel that Real Ale is more appropriate as most of their sales are in bottled form, which is only "cask" under CAMRA's rather broad definition.

Secondly your treatment of the brakspear article defies logic, so I reverted it. I can see no reason to decimate an existing article, then recreate it under a different name. Please integrate any additional changes into the original article.--Pypex 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to talk to you, so I hope you get this.

This is in reference to my work on Brakspear.

There are two Brakspear entries. One is for the old brewery company which sold off the brewery building and the beer brand names, but kept the pub chain. The other is for Refresh UK who bought the rights to the brand names.

I haven't looked at what you have done yet, but I assume it is not difficult to put it back to how I had it?

Your other comment is on Real Ale v Cask Ale.

I have made an attempt to tidy up and make clear the distinction between the two. I thought the situation was clearer now.

I think I made one change on an American brewer which I admit is out of my knowledge, but that was due to the original comment leading to a blind link. I made an assumption that the person meant cask ale rather than real ale, but of course I could have been totally wrong. It is not my intention to work in areas I don't know, and that was just a one off. I will certainly stick to my own speciality in future.

Just to clarify the situation regarding Real Ale and Cask Ale. Real Ale is a term used by CAMRA and refers to beer still on the yeast and not served under pressure and using traditional ingredients. It's a confusing and misleading term often misunderstood, even by CAMRA members themselves. Cask Ale and Bottle Conditioned are terms more commonly used throughout the world and are more specific. I'll look again at the descriptions to see if they need any more work.

Cheers!

SilkTork

Please stop removing categories == + == categories

Please stop deleting categories from all the beer articles. It is now going to take other Users a lot of time going round adding them back in. If you create a new cat eg Closed British breweries, DO NOT delete a cat like English breweries, UNLESS you also create a new subcat Closed English breweries. Otherwise you are destroying a valuable research tool. Wikipedia categorisation is not an easy area for new Users. Please read Wikipedia:Categories before editing any more category markers.--Mais oui! 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I will get the hang of things soon. I hope! - - I'm not quite sure what you are objecting to. I took away links mixing closed down breweries with active breweries. Are you suggesting that it's a good idea to keep them together. Or that I should have created categories for England. Scotland. Wales. Northern Ireland. Isle of Man. Etc? - - I suppose the debate here is if British is more helpful as a category for the closed breweries of Britain than using seven different categories (including Jersey and Guernsey). - - Or are you suggesting that we have Closed British Breweries which are then broken down into the seven sub groups of Closed Jersey Breweries, Closed Scottish Breweries etc? - - Anyway. Nice to hear from you. - - SilkTork 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove or edit comments left by other Users: it is considered very poor Witiquette.

By removing legitimate cats you are destroying a research tool: Cat:English breweries means exactly that: both historic and current. It does not, by default, mean simply still extant breweries. The same goes for ALL cats: they do not just apply to modern topics - everything within that topic goes in that cat, unless there is a subcat called "Historic... ", "Defunct..." "Closed... " or whatever, in which case it goes in that subcat. You are removing things from appropriate subcats and hence destroying a research tool.--Mais oui! 13:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi again. Thanks again for your advice. I think I get your point, and I'm now working on a possible solution. - - I will delete the bulk of your message when I have the solution because then I know it has been actioned. - - Cheers. - - SilkTork 17:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Now you have started adding articles into supercats!!! I urge you once again: please read Wikipedia:Categories. Articles should not be put into both subcats and supercats: only into the relevant subcat. Please read up on this before continuing: you are creating an awful lot of work for other Users who are going to have to tidy up this mess.--Mais oui! 17:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I just saw your message. Could you explain where I am going wrong. I have read through the guidelines - I have them open as I'm working. I'm not sure where I am going wrong. - - SilkTork 18:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC) - - - Hi again. - - I was just doing some more category work and I noticed that you have put Vaux back into the English breweries sub. To explain my purpose. All British breweries, dead or alive, are being placed in the British breweries category. They can all be seen there as a list, grouped together. All closed breweries are also being placed in the Closed British Breweries sub. So they can be clearly seen there as a group. (The Closed British Breweries sub is also being attached to British history.) - - All breweries which produce beer are being grouped in the sub categories of their country of origin. So there is a place where people can see all the active breweries of a country as a group. There needs to be a clear list of active breweries. This list would become corrupted and incorrect when a closed brewery is mixed in with it. - - I hope you see what I am intending to do. I will now delete the English breweries listing you have attached to Vaux. - - Any questions. Please ask me. - - SilkTork 18:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop immediately

Now you have started blanking pages! This is considered to be vandalism. Please stop your actions immediately.--Mais oui! 18:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Blanking Pages - - - I assume you mean Young's. That was a duplicate of Young's Brewery. The Young's Brewery page was the more complete. So I cleared the Young's page and re-directed people to the Young's Brewery page. - - SilkTork 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ""[reply]

Blanking pages

You do not just delete the content of duplicate articles. You Merge and then Redirect them properly, or you request a merge. I will put up the relevant templates for you.

But please, please, please stop adding in supercategories: you are making one almighty mess!--Mais oui! 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop immediately

Why are you continuing to add supercategories? You do not add supercats where appropriate subcats are already in use.

You seem to misunderstand the categorisation system. Categories are NOT lists. A list is a type of article. If you want to make a list, then feel free to initiate a new article: but please stop mucking about with the categorisation system.--Mais oui! 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand that you unhappy with something I am doing. But I don't know what you are unhappy about. What is a supercategory? Can you give me a clear example of something I have done that you don't like. It could be that you don't understand what it is I am trying to do. From my perspective I am sorting out the British breweries. - - I have got the message loud and clear that you are unhappy with me. Your abrupt language. Your tone of voice. Your use of capital letters. The amount of complaining you do in relation to advice or helpful information. - - I understand that Mais oui!. What I don't understand is the exact and precise nature of my activity that is causing you a problem. - - Nor why you are so angry about it. - - I don't want to upset anyone here. I want to help you. Please let me know exactly, in words helpful to a newbie, what it is I am doing that is paining you so much! - - Peace! - - SilkTork 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) -[reply]

Caledonian Brewery

- - I notice this is under: Category:Defunct companies of Scotland - - As Scotland appears to be your area I thought I would check with you first. Caledonian is a working brewery. - - - SilkTork 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that although Caledonian is still a working brewery, it is no longer a company in its own right. A brewery and a company are not synonyms. God, I really, really, really do wish that you would familiarise yourself with how categories work here at Wikipedia. All of your recent edits are going to have to be reverted.--Mais oui! 19:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer project

Hi,

Thanks for your involvement, and your latest comment at the Wikipedia beer project. Just to let you know, I moved your comment from the project page (which is used as a public face of the project and to lay out its slightly formalized goals) to the project's talk page (which is where behind-the-scenes discussion with other members takes place). I hope this helps, and from now on if you didn't know you can look at and edit the talk page by clikcing the tab that will say either "talk" or "discussion" at the top of the project page, right next to "project page." Let me know if you need any further help with this.

By the way, as for your question itself, I'm not a Brit -- maybe an honorary one, though, as a Canadian? -- but I know there are a number of other British contributors, so hopefully you'll get a good response. I look forward to running into some of your contributions, and even if I'm not a Brit I certainly like your beer! --Daniel11 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Hi Daniel

As you may have noticed I'm going through the beer and brewery sections of Wiki tidying up and adding information.

I've recently done some work on your Beer Styles article. It's a very good article so forgive me for reworking it.

I may not get around to it for a couple of days, but it appears to me that this article would be a good place to go into some detail on the various approaches to beer style theory from Jackson's seminal work through the BJCP to current thinking, including Josh Oakes' "advanced beer styles" approach.

Would you have any thoughts on this development of your original article?

SilkTork 09:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Hi!

Welcome to Wikipedia; I look forward to seeing your contributions. FYI, I left you a quick message on the talk: page of the beer wikiproject, you might like to pop over there. Enjoy and if I can be of any help around here, let me know. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beer styles

Hi,

Why do you always go about Wiki things in a different way than everyone else? ;)

As for the beer styles article, feel free to edit it how you want. I can't say I'll be of much help, I'm not really a beer expert, but I'll keep my eye on it and make any improvements that I can think of. Thanks for the note, and as I say I'll be gladly watching for your improvements to the beer styles article as well as other beer-related ones. --Daniel11 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something I'm doing that is wrong? I'm new to Wiki and have much to learn. Any advice would be welcome.

Cheers!

SilkTork 22:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hic!

I, GraemeL, hearby award you **The Exceptional Newcomer Award** for your work on beer related articles. Hic! 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (KC)[reply]

It's your round.

Your move

It's always good to hear from a newcomer who loves his beer as much as I. I assume that because the wiki is still here that your move went well. Oh, by the way, don't assume that I'm American just because I happen to live in New York: my ignorance can be traced to my disregard for reality. Good work, and have a pint on me. Cheers! – Clockwork Soul 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddities

just minor little things.. you posted your comment to the top of my talk page instead of the bottom (just use the "+" button next to "edit this page" to add a comment on a talk page).. you posted a comment on the beer project page instead of the talk page, etc., stuff like that.... i'm sure you'll pick it up soon! --Daniel11 00:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O yes! Blundering around like a freshly castrated bull. I trampled on a few Wiki prize roses and got one guy gnashing his hair and weeping in despair. It's a strange place to a newcomer this Wiki world. If it wasn't for members like yourself welcoming me and pointing me in the right direction I might have collapsed under the weight of the vitriol that came my way from one disturbed individual.

Thanks for your support. It has been appreciated. SilkTork 07:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, glad if I managed to help out even a tiny bit. Hope you've pretty much adjusted by now, and sorry for the slight curtness of my messages, I've been pretty busy! --Daniel11 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otley Run

I notice you've edited the Otley Run page in the past. It's now being proposed for deletion. I thought you may like to visit its Articles for Deletion page to leave your thoughts. Regards, Jamse 18:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Goat Beer

Have you ever tasted Goat Beer? What is the source of your Bottle conditioning claim? [1]. Agnte 17:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have drunk the beer, and it had some yeast sediment in the bottom of the bottle. Added to which the brewery claims the beer is unfiltered and unpasteurised - the requirements for a bottle conditioned beer, and RateBeer.Com has it listed as a bottle conditioned beer. The style of the beer is a bitter or pale ale. But calling an Australian beer a "bitter" might lead to confusion with those hoppy lagers the Aussie brewers call bitter. I changed what someone had listed as "real ale" into something more specific and verifiable (I suspect when served on draught it wouldn't qualify as Real Ale, which is a very limiting and strict CAMRA definition), though I didn't actually change the style. Cheers! SilkTork 18:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my inital thoughts were that it's a bit misleading to call it Bottle conditioned when most people who drink it do so from draft - it doesn't go anywhere near a bottle. Mountain Goat do refer to their bottled product as "bottle conditioned" [2] [3], and if you can tell me where CAMRA's standards are, we can see if the draft meets their definition of 'real ale' even though the term is quite widley used these days. If it matters, all the media coverage i've found (and the goat website) refers to the beer as an english 'real ale' - perhaps this definition should be expanded. Agnte 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Ale. Yes, I agree that the term Real Ale is widely misunderstood. I have looked again at the page for Real Ale and made another adjustment which I hope will make the term a little clearer. It might be an idea if I adjust the entry in Mountain Goat to read Pale Ale as neither Real Ale or Bottle Conditioned is a beer style, which is what that beer box wants to say. All I was doing was going through Wiki and correcting sentences which mentioned Real Ale when Cask Ale was the more exact term. The Mountain Goat entry was awkward because the term Real Ale it was in that beer box under style. SilkTork 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pub Games

Hi Silk,

Why are you merging articles into Pub games. It doesn't seem like a very good idea. For one thing Pub games would be too large if it tried to be complete and it would be madness to fold in darts, snooker and dominoes. For another thing many if not most of these cames are also played in other contexts. For a third, cut-n-paste moves are usually a bad idea, as they fail to preserve the edit history (see Wikipedia:Page moves).

I also can't see a problem with having the seperate articles, see for example Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. -- Solipsist 12:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solipsist. To answer your question on why I merged some of the pub game articles into the main pub game article: I was going through the various Beer related categories and articles and I came upon a series of very small articles on the theme of pub games. By themselves they were little more than dictionary entries, while the main pub games article was simply a series of links to these very small articles.

As you may have noticed by now, it is not my intention to merge all pub game related articles into the pub game article, merely those which are quite minor. My intention is to create an encylopedia entry for Pub games which would involve doing a bit more than generating a list of links, it would involve making some comment on the various activities. Those comments are already on Wiki - I'm just collecting them together in what seems the most sensible place. Links are being provided for the activities which are large enough to generate their own entries.

Clearly there will be some borderline cases for which entries are significant enough to deserve their own entries; but I see no problem with someone doing some research on Pitch penny which would involve something more than the current single sentence and then undoing my redirect. Certainly Bar billiards was one which I did consider might deserve its own entry, and might be a good example of the classic borderline.

I suspect I have finished adding entries to the article - I am now considering how best to organise it. I currently have it split into two very awkward groups - Pushing Games and Other Games. This is clearly not very satisfactory. Any suggestions? SilkTork 13:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but it is generally not the way we do things. Some of those articles might be sub stubs, but they tend to grow over time. Lumping them in the one article will tend to inhibit their growth.

I started the article on Aunt Sally and it has grown nicely over the last year. Moving it into pub games is wrong, because for the most part it was played in fairgrounds and probably still can be found in village fetes. It also survives today as a pub game almost unique to Oxfordshire, but that wasn't its only role. It also removes the discussion over the linquistic meaning of an 'Aunt Sally'. Similarly Bar billiards and Ringing the bull were well beyond being stubs.

Also the pub games article has now become distorted, giving the impression that these minor games are more important that darts, snooker, and one-armed bandits.

I would suggest reverting the changes you've been making today, then go on to expand the pub games article to be more than a list of links by introducing discussion on the variations in popularity of each game. There must be games that are popular in Australian or Scottish pubs that are not popular in England (arm wrestling?). There must have been a craze for a certain game in Victorian pubs, and perhaps some new games were introduced by American airmen stationed in Britain during the second world war. How's about the invasion of video games into pubs in the late 70s. Is there a pub somewhere that prides itself on its range of pub games? Is there a combined pub game tournament? In other words, turn pub games into a history of changing tastes for games played in pubs. -- Solipsist 13:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying about some of the pub games having a life beyond the pub. And I would agree that Aunt Sally is an odd entry as a pub game - it always seemed to me more of a fairground game. But I took my cue from the comments in the article. I have deleted the redirect on the Aunt Sally article, though I have also kept the contents on the Pub Games article, which will be edited down in time. Clearly I should be doing more work out of the public eye, but this pub games article was not planned and it is simply growing spontaneously so all the stuff is going live as matters arise. My intention this morning was to do more work on the Scottish beer entry. But it looks as that won't be done now as I am running out of the time I had alloted for Wiki work today! SilkTork 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! And your comments on the future direction of the Pub games article are very good, especially some inclusion on those electronic games and quizes. All taken on board. SilkTork 13:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, that's the way Wikis work. There is no need to get everything perfect before changing an article. Sometimes its good to ask for input on a talk page before starting a big change, but in a case like this, it isn't easy to know where the best place to address comments would be. We also advocate wikipedia:Be bold because waiting for other editors to agree about someting can take forever. If you make a mistake, or go in a direction that other disagree with, it is nearly always possible to undo the changes.

"I would suggest reverting the changes you've been making today." Ouch!

That's something I can help with. I'm a sysop, and reverting pages is something we do all the time. -- Solipsist 14:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi SilkTork. I suppose it is on your watchlist anyway, but I've asked a peer review of the Beer article. Piet 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

My contributions

Getting there ....

Bar Billiards in Pub games

Hi. Thanks for your note. I've dropped the picture you were unsure about and loaded up a different one. What is the rule regarding anonymous old postcards in which there was no claim or assertion of copyright? I took some information from the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Reading Room. I found this information useful:

To establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove "ownership" of copyrighted material and "copying" by the defendant. (Norma Ribbon & Trimming, Inc. v. Little, 51 F.3d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir.1991). A plaintiff establishes "ownership" by demonstrating that the material is "copyrightable" and that he complied with the statutory requirements in securing the copyright. Central Point Software, Inc. v. Nugent, 903 F.Supp. 1057, 1057 (E.D. Tex. I995).

If it is difficult for you to find a rights holder after employing due diligence, it ought to be equally difficult for a claimant to show that a copyright had been secured.

I take that to mean that if an image is unmarked and unclaimed and has been in the public domain for some years (a postcard for example) then it would be hard for anyone to claim copyright infringement. SilkTork 09:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For material that was published in the United States before 1977, where the original publication lacks any copyright statement, the material is in the public domain. --Carnildo 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cask ale / draught beer / keg beer

Hi there, I wanted to say thanks (and a warm welcome) for your recent contributions to the Cask ale article. I proposed a few months back moving the Real ale and Real ale brewing process articles to something more appropriate. In fact I had read your excellent article on RateBeer while researching the topic; your points about CAMRA's rules disallowing top pressure helped influence my reasons to suggest a move. Anyway, I'm glad you were able to sort that out as you are surely more knowledgable than I am about cask ales.

There are a few important points I wanted to bring up:

1. The expression 'draught beer' is by no means exclusive to keg-dispense beer. Please read my post about this at Talk:Draught beer.

2. I disagree that 'keg beer' is an expression exclusive to the UK. Have a look at Google, there are a lot of references there which are clearly from US sites. Though I'd agree that the use of the term specifically opposed to cask ale may be most prevalent in the UK. I think the Keg beer article should focus on the process of kegging beer and less on its slang usage. IMO, most of the Draught beer article belongs in Keg beer.

3. Some of your text in the Cask ale article uses the second-person "you" quite a lot, which is discouraged in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I think it could use a bit of copy editing to give it more of an encyclopedic tone. Don't get me wrong, I do like your writing style, but what what works for a site devoted to beer geeks will inevitably need some reworking in an encyclopedia.

I look forward to your comments.

Cheers, Dforest 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Scotland in the High Middle Ages

Hey, thanks for the praise. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Yagan

Thanks, much appreciated. Snottygobble 22:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hops, bottle conditioning

Again, great work with Hops. I trust that the folks at RateBeer have no problem with you reposting the material on Wikipedia?

You may want to have a look at bottle conditioning. It could use some expansion.

Cheers, Dforest 04:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuengling

Hello! I noticed you are trying to move Yuengling to Yuengling Brewing Company. Please keep in mind that such a name change should be suggested and discussed first at Talk:Yuengling. Also, please do not copy and paste material in order to move articles- doing so separates the article's history between two different pages. Instead, try to use the "Move" button along the top of the screen; if the desired article name already has more than two items in its history, the move will not be possible. In that case, the desired move should be listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please see Help:Moving a page for more information. Olessi 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will list it at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Once the move is fixed, the naming of the article can be discussed at Talk:Yuengling (I think "Yuengling Brewery" is a more suitable name than "Yuengling" or "Yuengling Brewery Company", but that can be discussed later). Olessi 19:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldwasser

Hi, Goldwasser is not a brand, it's a type of liqueur, like say 'Amaretto'. Goldwasser is made by several different unrelated companies in Germany, Poland and elsewhere. Even Ireland, as I discovered to my horror in Dublin airport last week. I've put it back as 'liqueur'. -- Blorg 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ignore that, I see you were actually making that change yourself. Brain screwed on wrong this morning, read the diffs the wrong way around :-) -- Blorg 17:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snaps / Schnapps

Hey,

I disagree with your attempted merger of Snaps to Schnapps and have reverted it; if you feel strongly about it, we should hash it out at Talk:Snaps.

More importantly perhaps, this edit of yours, where you copy/pasted from Snaps to Schnapps, violates the GFDL (the Wikipedia terms of copyright), because you didn't specify in your edit summary where you got the content from: the attribution has been lost. Anyone looking at the page history would believe you wrote it. You need to be very careful about that.

Thanks, —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool about the revert. I'm just doing some alcohol classification and it looked like those two things were the same. Any idea what the actual difference is between snaps and schnapps? Not that it matters - if you say they are different enough to be two entries I'm cool with that - I'm just curious.

The other matter (violates the GFDL) has concerned me. What would you suggest I do in future to prevent such violations. Advice is always welcome. Cheers! SilkTork 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure that whenever you copy some text from one page to another, you state that in your edit summary. For example, a good edit summary for the edit I mentioned above would have been "merged from snaps". That way there's a trail of attribution in the history.

As for schnapps and snaps, schnapps seems to be describing a specific type of beverage, whle snaps is more like a cultural description of a "shot": a drink, not of a certain type of beverage (it can be vodka or akvavit) but of a certain tradition. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonated drinks catgeory

Hey, I just wanted to notify you that I responded to your comments at Category talk:Carbonated drinks. I don't want to reverse your changes without hearing back from you. Cheers. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A History of Vodka

Eh, Steve, when you merge an article by putting #redirect at the top of it, please blank the other text, thanks. — Mar. 2, '06 [13:37] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Non-essential technical details: It really makes no difference for the human reader, but it confuses the hell out of bots. For example, my bot was checking for all links to Poland and found that page, noted that the page was a redirect, but scratched its head because the page redirected to something besides Poland.

Torulaspora delbrueckii

I was just checking out RateBeer.com and saw your one of your postings. Small world. Only 3030 beer reviews? Slacker. Actually 3030 is pretty impressive. I thougth I was doing good with 630 (or so) reviews (on BeerAdvocate). I just added Saison, let me know if there is anything we can do to trick it out. Naerhu 11:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- the beer has no stylistic certainities and Saisons are more unlike each other than they are like other Pale Ales. Anyway - great to hear from you. Let's keep in touch. Cheers! SilkTork 12:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sworn enemies? Thats unfortunate, but true. I say that neither site is perfect, and both are great resources. Perhaps there should be a wikipage on the war between RB and BA, listing skirmish fought and casualties, etc. I went to a BA event and one of elder BA's told a neophyte to stop acting like somebody from RB which got a round of laugther. All I could think is, "Beer dorks will be beer dorks".

Thanks for the revision. Excellent! "Everyone who has done a little research into Saisons comes up with the same conclusion". Everyone but me? Ouch! Just kidding, good point. I always thought the amber Saisons (such as Saison Silly) were closer to and should be considered Bières de Garde Naerhu 03:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transport by city

Hi. I see that you've completely emptied the transport/transportation by city categories. What's the story? Was this discussed somewhere? - EurekaLott 22:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I happen to think that categorizing transport by city is useful, for a number of reasons. Categorizing by cities is a typical way of organizing many subjects, and lumping them all together at the national level does users a disservice, by making navigation more difficult. It's confusing to have different levels of government grouped together, and it becomes impossible to explore across national boundaries. I've restored the categories for now. In the future, if you wish to remove or merge categories, please nominate them at categories for deletion instead of manually emptying them. - EurekaLott 03:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egerton MS and Stout Beer

SilkTork, could you give any pointers to where I might find out more about the Egerton MS mention of stout in relation to beer? It would be nice to get a fuller insight into the development of "stout" as meaning stout-porter. BrendanH 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. Unfortunately the British Museum is not exactly local to me. Do you know of an on-line or published reference to its reference to stout beer, or could you just give fuller details of what you know about it (in talk:Guinness perhaps)? BrendanH 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. The wonders of "Look Inside"! It's a nice balanced discussion too. It would be worth working some of that into both the Guinness and Stout beer articles -- I might have a go this evening. BrendanH 16:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mais Oui! Conversation

I noticed that my conversation was deleted from the Mais oui! talk page. Not a problem. But so I have a record of recent discussions I have copied it here.

- ==British/English Breweries== -

- -

-

""- - ==supercategories== - - "Why are you continuing to add supercategories? You do not add supercats where appropriate subcats are already in use. - - You seem to misunderstand the categorisation system. Categories are NOT lists. A list is a type of article. If you want to make a list, then feel free to initiate a new article: but please stop mucking about with the categorisation system.--Mais oui! 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)" - - -

- - This part is fine: - - "The reason is that although Caledonian is still a working brewery, it is no longer a company in its own right. A brewery and a company are not synonyms." - - This part is rude and hostile: - - " God, I really, really, really do wish that you would familiarise yourself with how categories work here at Wikipedia. All of your recent edits are going to have to be reverted.--" - ==

By removing legitimate cats you are destroying a research tool: Cat:English breweries means exactly that: both historic and current. It does not, by default, mean simply still extant breweries. The same goes for ALL cats: they do not just apply to modern topics - everything within that topic goes in that cat, unless there is a subcat called "Historic... ", "Defunct..." "Closed... " or whatever, in which case it goes in that subcat. You are removing things from appropriate subcats and hence destroying a research tool.--Mais oui! 13:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Now you have started adding articles into supercats!!! I urge you once again: please read Wikipedia:Categories. Articles should not be put into both subcats and supercats: only into the relevant subcat. Please read up on this before continuing: you are creating an awful lot of work for other Users who are going to have to tidy up this mess.--Mais oui! 17:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

People always want to know: Contributions

Page Blanking

On 19-Mar, you blanked List of beer organisations. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If you believe the page should be deleted, please follow the deletion procedures. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 02:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One year: thanks!

My goodness, has it been a year already? The next round is on me! – Clockwork Soul 12:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!

Hey, I'd hardly even noticed the time go by! I can't believe it's already been a year, it seems like it's only been a couple months since we started going, but wow -- it's grown so fast and really taken off. As I'm sure you know, you've been one of the most active and productive Beeropedians, so you definitely deserve at least as much credit. Anyway, thanks again, and as ClockworkSoul said -- next round's on me ;) --Daniel11 02:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

Thanks for cleaning up the discussion page (and keeping the origin!); I worry, though, that a candle on top of a beer might pose a bit of a fire hazard -- or at least a wasted, waxy beer hazard ;) --Daniel11 03:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning

Big ta for cleaning-up after me at Grain, etc. There'll be lots more, I bet, as I got distracted from some a series of Hoo Peninsula articles... What's that saying about doing what's important, not what's urgent? Oh dear... :-} Cheers, JackyR 19:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Cliffe originally. Used to be that even Medway people hadn't heard of it: now I just say, "Where they wanted to build the airport." I'm half-way through fixing the article on Cooling - and have been for four months... Ah well. JackyR 22:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness! Have just noticed the big addition down the side of my page! Thank you (*glow*). That's really sweet of you! JackyR 22:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Badger Brewery

I reverted the edit because several things led me to believe it was unhelpful: changing the topic of the article (the page title is Badger Brewery, if you want an article on H&W it should be under that title), deleting the categories and moving the infobox to an unhelpful position. Sorry for not explaining my reasons in the edit summary, I was in a hurry to go and attend to some work! Joe D (t) 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]